The Suspension of Graham Power:

An Illegal Action?

Of Evidential Importance

In my Defence Case?

Jersey Oligarchy Fights

Publication of Napier Report.

In what seems like a lifetime ago – the Jersey oligarchy were forced – with great reluctance – to commission an independent report into the mystifying and bizarre suspension of Jersey’s then Chief Constable, Graham Power, QPM, in November 2008.

The resultant Napier Report has been completed – and in the hands of the Jersey authorities for some weeks – yet – no word of its contents – and no sign of its promised publication.

Fortunately, some States members, most noticeably, Deputy Bob Hill, have not accepted the Culture of Concealment, and have continued to fight against the secrecy and cover-ups.

Today, Deputy Hill’s patience ran out – and he e-mailed an ultimatum to Jersey’s Chief Minister, Terry Le Sueur.

And in response to Deputy Hill’s e-mail, I have – again – written to the prosecution demanding disclosure of the Napier Report to me – and I have issued a brief press-statement.

Deputy Hill’s e-mail, my e-mail to the prosecution, and my press-statement are produced in sequence below.

What – we must wonder – is just so concerning to the Jersey oligarchy – that they should strive to keep the Napier Report secret – and out of my hands – until my abuse-of-process case is concluded?

We shall see.

One thing we can be quite certain of; the summation hearing that was scheduled for this Friday is not taking place – unless and until the Napier Report is disclosed and admitted as evidence.



6Th October – 09.43.

“Dear Terry,

I am most concerned about the delay in circulating the Napier Report. It was my understanding that you were going to make a statement and/or circulate the Report to States Members and the Media at the end of last week to be embargoed until early this week. I am mindful of a court case and that the parties concerned might have an interest in the Napier Report. I making no comment as to its value but I believe that both parties should have sight of the Napier Report before the conclusion of the case and not after.

I understand that the case resumes on Friday therefore time is running out.

To ensure that justice is not denied, I ask that by 4pm today you either make a formal statement as to why the Napier Report cannot be released or by that time it is released to all States Members, the Media, Mr Power and Mr Syvret and embargoed until 3pm tomorrow.

If you decide to do neither I will release the copy you have given me to the above mentioned persons at 430pm today and embargoed until 3pm when I will hold a public press conference to answer any questions that may arise from the Report.


Deputy F. J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.,

Deputy of St Martin.”


6TH October – 10.53.

Advocate Baker and Mr. Le Heuze

I note I have received no response to the e-mail I sent yesterday in connection with the Napier Report.

However – I was, a short while ago, a recipient amongst many of the e-mail I am forwarding here, from Deputy Bob Hill.

You will note that he, effectively, confirms the fact that the Napier Report is of relevance to my abuse-of-process application. Having not yet seen the document, I cannot state in what way, or to what extent – other than to state with certainty that it will – at the very least – be of probative evidential value.

Knowing the workings of the Chief Minister’s department, it seems likely that Deputy Hill will be distributing the document as he has described.

However – I remain of the view that it would be altogether more satisfactory – and a good deal more civilised and credible for the prosecution – to simply disclose the document to me without further delay – rather than me having to obtain an item of relevant evidence via political events.

However – and regardless of the turn events may take – please note this and regard it as notice of an application to court; now that a third-party who has a copy of the report (a former police officer, so a person with some experience of evidential value) has confirmed the Napier Report to be of relevance to the abuse-of-process application – I shall not be proceeding with summaries this Friday, and will instead seek what must now be an unarguable adjournment to allow both parties to fully absorb the Napier Report, and bring its evidence into the proceedings.

I would, therefore, be grateful for immediate confirmation from the prosecution that: –

(a) The Napier Report will now be disclosed to me?

(b) The necessary adjournment from Friday will not be opposed?

At risk of repetition, the Napier Report will come to me in any event, via political processes – and it is to be published in the near future – so it would be far preferable and more respectable for the prosecution to simply e-mail me a copy now.

Thank you for your assistance.

Stuart Syvret.


I forward here an e-mail issued by Deputy Bob Hill concerning the unacceptable delay in the publication and distribution of the Napier Report into the suspension of the recently retired Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police Force, Graham Power, Queens Police Medal.

Deputy Hill effectively confirms what I have long known; namely that the Napier Report contains material that is of evidential relevance to the abuse-of-process argument I am presently presenting in Jersey’s Magistrates’ Court in respect of the politically motivated arrest, charging and prosecution mounted against me.

I have – throughout these proceedings – made very frequent applications for relevant evidence to be disclosed. Virtually all such applications have been rejected.

Latterly, when the likely probative value of the Napier Report became known to me, I have requested its evidential disclosure to me by the prosecution.

These requests have not – so far – produced a response.

I have, therefore, again written to the prosecution and the court, forwarding to them Deputy Hill’s e-mail – constituting as it does, conformation by a third-party of the evidential value of the Napier Report to the abuse-of process proceedings – and informed the prosecution and court that I shall now be applying for the summation hearing that was scheduled for Friday to be adjourned, to allow time for the Napier Report to be admitted to proceedings and considered by the parties.

It cannot be acceptable in a respectable democracy for crucial relevant evidence to be withheld from a defendant; especially a defendant who has already been denied what should be a fair trial in accordance with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Stuart Syvret


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.